Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>   Most POV-Ray animations I have seen in YouTube do not pay almost any
> attention whatsoever to texturing and lighting quality. This has the
> negative effect of making POV-Ray look like a very primitive rendering
> program, like it was 15 years ago. It would be really nice if people
> making such animations would put a lit more work on the textures and
> lighting.

DISCLAIMER: My favorite 3D films (The Incredibles to Meatballs to Astro Boy)
wouldn't be what they are without ideal use of radiosity, lighting, and
texturing.


What is the purpose of art-- what is the purpose of tinkering with povray?
Reasons might include the search for what will sell for a buck, what is
entertaining, what brings joy, what will inform, what will inspire.


I would encourage folks not to follow Warp's advice.  My basis for making this
recommendation is that I am the creator of the  23rd, 31st, 45th, 51st, 54th,
55th, 59th, (and 813th!!) most "popular" of the 814 products labeled with
"povray" at zazzle.com.  Some of my works have a higher rating than some of
Giles Tran's.  While all of his work probably has higher artistic merit, its
possible that zazzle's page-view statistics could show that joy, entertainment,
or inspiration could come with simple forms over exhaustive photorealism.


So the advice, of:
"Please don't embarass the povray community by displaying work which doesn't
demonstrate optimum radiosity, lighting, and texturing."

.... should be counterbalanced with the advice of:
"Please don't embarass the povray community by displaying work that has wooden
demonstrations of radiosity, lighting, and texturing."

Post a reply to this message